2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, as indicated in its holding, determined the punishment by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant and unfavorable circumstances, and the circumstances the Prosecutor claims as the grounds for appeal and seems to have been already reflected in the lower court’s sentencing

There is no special change in circumstances that may change the punishment of the court below in the trial.

Considering the Defendant’s age, occupation, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, health status, criminal records, attitude at an investigation agency and court, nature of a crime, motive, means and consequence of a crime, circumstances after a crime was committed, etc., the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant cannot be deemed as unduly unreasonable, as it goes beyond the reasonable scope of its discretion.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.